Monday, May 10, 2004

The Simkanin Trial and the Courts 

Courtesy of Angela Stark and the Irwin Schiff News - this message from Irwin:

I noticed e-mails to the ZIF group seeking to explain the travesty of Justice in connection with Simkanin's conviction because of the alleged administrative nature of our courts and other considerations. All this does is provide a kind of rationalization for the criminal conduct of our alleged courts. All legitimate administrative tribunals or admiralty courts attempt to find the truth in the matter before the court, board, or tribunal. If the court or tribunal is not trying to find the truth in the matter before it, then it is not even a court or tribunal, but
is only masquerading as such. It is a court in name only. and we stop trying to dignify such courts by attempting to rationalize some basis that allows them to lie about the law to juries as Judge McBryde did.

First of all if Simkanin was charged with violating Code Section 7202: that should have been immediately challenged by way of a motion to dismiss, since 7202 does not allege an offense. It only makes it a crime to collect,
account for, and pay over any tax if one is required to do those things, but the statute does not refer persons to any statute that requires anybody to do any of those things. The only law that might apply to withholding is section 3102 and it only says (once) that such taxes shall be collected and the rest of the references (four) state that employers may deduct. The reference to "shall" is the equivalent of may for reasons that I cover in all of my books. Thus there is no law that states that employers are required to deduct. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is that it would violate the XIII Amendment which bars involuntary servitude.

So when McBryde told the jury that he made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA taxes etc. etc. etc., he lied on various
grounds! First of all, no law imposed such a legal duty, and McBryde had no authority to determine that persons have a legal duty to do something that no law requires them to do. So Judge McBryde lied about the law, and Simkanin was framed in a forum that was masquerading as a court, and people should stop trying to justify the frame-up by rationalizing it had something to do with the nature of our court system or some other reason.
Irwin Schiff

Saturday, May 01, 2004

Dick Simkanin - Political Prisoner 

Dick "Richard M." Simkanin has been sentenced to 84 months (7 years).

The combined sentences of a Bank Robber and a Wife Beating Firearms dealer were less than 1/2 of that!
But, of course, a bank robber is no problem; THEY can always print more "money".
And, a wife beater is not a threat to THEM. He's only a threat to the people.

To help with the cost of Dick's Appeal, or just to send Dick a note go to Dick's web site for address information.

Friday, April 30, 2004

What's LAW got to do with it? 

Many are aware that I am in dispute with the IRS over alleged "income" tax. Over the last few years, the minions and computers at the IRS have sought to instill fear through intimidation by bombarding my wife and me with unsigned, unidentified, computer-generated form letters. Most all of them contained demands for "money" or threats of retaliation if we didn't cough up! For all of those years, we responded to every bogus letter sent to us. Our responses apparently fell on blind eyes and deaf ears (actually, computers don't have eyes or ears) because none of our questions were addressed, and each "response" from the IRS contained just another demand and/or threat.

But, we all know, it's not about the "money"; they print the "money". On the contrary, it's really about control and compliance. Moreover, it's not about the LAW either as you shall see below.

Most recently, the federal collection agency (IRS) for the central bank (FRS) has ratcheted up the debate. Since we have not agreed with the computer's determination based on our understanding of the LAW, and it has not offered to enlighten us on the LAW in spite of our many entreaties over the years, and in spite of our providing a written statement from our congressman, Henry Bonilla, that "I can find no place where it (the LAW) specifically states that one must pay income taxes", it has redirected its mischief toward Frost Bank.

The federal collection agency's computers have generated yet one more bogus form - "Form 668-A(c) - Notice of Levy". The "Notice" was a notification to us that it plans to levy (take) our funds. It (the federal collection agency) then placed that notice in an envelope and mailed it to Frost Bank. The bank, having received the bogus form, routed it to one of its minions who, after having keyed in a few entries into her computer, pressed the start button which generated a form letter to me saying: "... Frost National Bank received a "Notice of Levy" from the Internal Revenue Service instructing that all funds on deposit with Frost Bank in your name ... be remitted to them." Note the bold (my emphasis) words. I emphasized "National" because the central bank is also, and I emphasized "instructing" because that is a LIE.

First, that Form 668-A(c) "Notice of Levy" is bogus because it does not exhibit an OMB Number (44 USC 3512(b)). It can only be used within the federal government. Second, it contained typos in the form of transposed letters on its face indicating that any numbers contained on the form could also be transposed. Third, it is signed with a facsimile of a Service Representative's signature not the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate. Fourth, the "signature" is not given under penalty of perjury. And fifth, It gives no "instructions" to anyone to do anything! It is a "Notice."

The back of the Form 668-A(c) contains "Excerpts from the Internal Revenue Code". (My bold) That, I suppose, provides cover for the federal collection agency. They never said it was the "Pertinent Excerpts"! But of course, that was exactly what they wanted the recipient to think and believe. The "Excerpts" begin with SEC. 6331(b). One might wonder what worthless information was contained in SEC. 6331(a). Here is a Pertinent Excerpt: "Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee or elected official." How 'bout dem apples?

Another citation from the "Excerpts" on the back of the Form 668-A(c) is SEC 6332(c) Special Rule for Banks. "Any bank (as defined in section 408(n)) shall surrender (subject to an attachment or execution under judicial process) any deposits (including interest thereon) in such bank only after 21 days after service of levy." Here the federal collection agency ADMITS in black on white that there must first be a "judicial process" resulting in an "attachment or execution" followed by a "service of levy" on the bank. My dumbed-down, public school educated, eleven year old grandchild can understand the meaning of that sentence even if not understanding the meaning of some of the words. But not an Executive of Frost Bank. One wonders where, when or even if he went to school. Our education system can't be that bad, can it?

Well, all of this was explained to the bank in fifth-grade clear type, at least three times and in my best verbal king's English at least twice. A four-way Conference Call was established among two bank executives, a federal collection agency representative and me. The collection agency representative lied through his teeth and exhibited a belligerent attitude before hanging up on the three of us. The bankers said, in effect, "we feel that we have to steal your money and give it to the devil else, the devil will come after us because our skirts aren't clean!" How does it go? - "because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matthew 13:13

What Price for security; what cost to Liberty? 

Today is April 30, 2004. My first and last posting to this blog was about 2-1/2 months ago. It has been an agonizing and depressing 97 days. During that short period of time two of my close friends were arrested and incarcerated. They were released on bail, but their trials and tribulations are still to come. Today, Dick Simkanin will again face his executioner - Judge John McBryde. The prognosis is not good for Dick or for freedom-loving, law-abiding Americans.

We are not enough. We need more strength. We need to Awaken more people to the tyranny that abounds. There are scores, maybe hundreds or thousands of groups, supported by millions of Americans, that know of one or more tyrannical actions of our elected and appointed leaders. Many of these people are in the government or the media, but they are silent because they are in a personal self-preservation mode. They don their blinders each morning in the hope that they will survive and prosper for one more day. But though their view be focused, it is myopic. They have eyes that WILL not see the harm that will befall their children and their children's children. Enforced national service, national ID number assignment, electronic voting, radio frequency identification, GPS tracking, camera surveillance, unsafe mandatory vaccinations, and on and on. Each time they tell us that this is for our safety.

Yet, our borders are wide open. Does that protect us? Our government launches preemptive, undeclared wars against nonbelligerent nations. Does that provide security for Americans at home and abroad? Our military incarcerates and tortures foreigners without due process. Does that enhance the stature of America abroad? Our Department of Justice launches legal wars against Americans charging violations of "laws" they will not and cannot cite. Does that enhance the stature of American justice?

Do they have a clue about what they are doing and what is happening to this beloved country to which our forefathers mutually pledged their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor? And worse, do they even care? Our job - ? We must get them to know and to care. We must use all of the tools at our disposal. And, we must have solidarity.

Sunday, January 18, 2004


It is now apparent that Mr. Richard Michael Simkanin ran into an invisible brick wall in the United States Courthouse Building located at 501 West 10th Street, Fort Worth, Texas o/a the 5th day of January 2004 AD. He had "law" on his side. He had "facts" on his side. But, the question arises: Did he have access to ALL the law and ALL the facts available?

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, Attorney and Counselor At Law, has researched Title 28 of the United States Code. Part I, Chapter 5 is entitled Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - Organization of Courts - District Courts. Could there be any more appropriate information to have at one's fingertips when entering that den of iniquity on 10th Street? Dr. Rivera's research casts a bright light on facts that were not placed in evidence on the 5th day of January. Perhaps it is not too late. Here, in his own words, is his factual analysis:

"In September 2002, I prepared an opinion of the jurisdiction of the United States district courts. My opinion that those courts have no judicial power has not changed, but I have created this much shorter version of that opinion with links to federal government web sites to encourage you to share what I have written with others. Charles Dickens in A Christmas Carol warned Ebenezer Scrooge and us to beware Ignorance for it will bring Doom if it is not soon corrected. The federal district courts must, therefore, be seen as incapable of dispensing justice if we are to be free.

Today's federal trial courts familiar to everyone following corporate scandal, music file sharing and medical marijuana have their origin in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That act created thirteen judicial districts although all the thirteen original states had not ratified the Constitution. The title of the act that created the first district courts caused the misconception that these courts exercise constitutional judicial power? They do not. A close examination of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and every subsequent ?judicial? legislative act of Congress since will reveal but one United States District Court created in any of the several states. This history of the district courts is a severely abridged version of the full story as told in the Constitution and the acts of Congress. The story as told there requires some deciphering of Title 28 U.S.C., which has been enacted into positive law. Title 28 U.S.C. thus enacted reflects accurately what is in the statutes covering the federal judiciary.

Territory is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as, "A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction." In America there are two kinds of territory one is federal territory and the other is not. The Judiciary Act of 1789 is concerned with constitutional judicial power when it deals with the Supreme Court and other powers when the district courts are created in federal territory. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 grants to Congress the power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Congress is, thus, exercising this "exclusive Legislation" when it establishes the district courts in the several states in Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. and a "like Authority" when it creates a district court in Puerto Rico in section 119 of that chapter and title, unless it can be shown to be exercising Article III jurisdiction to "create such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish." Has Congress created an Article III court in Puerto Rico?

To pose the question in this fashion is to answer it because Puerto Rico is not a state of the Union. It is well settled that Article III judicial power cannot be exercised in a mere possession of the United States. Or is the law well settled? The United States Government Manual for many years has appeared to claim that the district court in Puerto Rico is an Article III district court. To see for yourself, go to www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/. To learn the truth go to sections 91 and 119 of Title 28 U.S.C. http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm.

Chapter 5, Title 28 U.S.C., of course, disposes of the issue by reference to the political condition of the present 50 several states of the Union, Washington D. C., and Puerto Rico as of January 1, 1945. On that date Hawaii and Alaska were most certainly territories, so if the "territorial composition" of the list of courts presented from Section 81 to 131 is to be consistent it must be and is today the federal territory that is contained within the counties and parishes of geographic state names listed.

Sections 81-131 of Chapter 5 - District Courts does, indeed, show the territorial composition of the districts and divisions by counties even though Louisiana contains no counties and is instead divided into parishes. On January 1, 1945, the territorial composition of the United States District Courts in the 48 states consisted of the same kind of federal territory that existed in Alaska and Hawaii, the two territories, as it does today. Federal territory is the only kind of territory common to the several states, the District of Columbia, the territories and Puerto Rico.

The Historical and Revision Notes to section 91, Hawaii, clearly states that the district court that had existed in Hawaii on January 1, 1945 was a territorial court established by and existing under Title 28 U.S.C. by making it, upon achieving statehood, "a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law because it was used to establish the district court in Hawaii when it was a territory. Congress, also, specifically provides for territorial judges to be appointed pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of Title 28 U.S.C., thus preventing the Hawaii court from actually functioning as an Article III United States District Court. District court judges it turns out are life-tenured administrators not constitutional judicial officers.

The reader should examine Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C. http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm in its entirety to dispel any thoughts that any of the United States District Courts are capable of exercising Article III judicial power anywhere within their lawful federal territorial jurisdiction. The reader is hereby given permission to distribute this paper in its entirety.

The statements which appear above are entirely the thoughts and opinions of the author based upon a literal reading of the statutes and the application of common facts to reach a conclusion. Conclusions are reached so that additional facts can be obtained. Argument is to be avoided because argument does not aid in the attainment of additional facts. For example, from the statement in ? 91 that the territorial court in Hawaii was established by and existing under Title 28 U.S.C. we can conclude that Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law.

I am combating ignorance by sticking to facts and intentionally making no argument. Administrative process precludes argument. I invite others to add to the facts I present here. While the facts I present do establish that the territorial jurisdiction of a non-judicial court cannot be decided by one of its officers, that result follows from the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from those facts. The determination of what is territory is an act of sovereignty that cannot be decided administratively.

Very truly yours,

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera"

Thank you Dr. Rivera for your seminal effort. I urge all readers of this blogspot to seize upon Dr. Rivera's invitation and add to the body of knowledge he has initiated. Knowing the terrain of the battlefield amounts to having a home "court" advantage.
We hold these Truths ...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?